Inadv. Whistle Question
 

This happened during a game at camp a couple weeks ago....wanted to get y'all's opinion on it.

Team A is shooting a one-and-one FT. AP Arrow belongs to A. First shot hits the back of the rim and bounces high. A1 and B1 both tap the ball simultaneously trying to knock the ball into the backcourt for their team. Ball bounces once close to the division line. After the bounce, A2 jumps from the backcourt, catches the ball, and lands in the frontcourt.

Trail blows his whistle anticipating a backcourt violation, and then realizes that there is not one because of no team control. On the inadvertant whistle, the crew gets together and decides to give the ball back to Team A on account of the AP arrow.

I found out that the crew's thinking was that since no team control existed due to the missed FT and the simultaneously tapped ball, no team control existed at the time the "violation" occurred. Thus, no team control at the POI -- go with the AP.

The clinician on the game was of the opinion that Team A should have received the ball not because of the AP, but because team control started the moment A2 caught the ball, followed by the inadvertant whistle -- POI gives the ball to A. Thoughts?

The timing involved is a bit unclear from your post. If B2 grabs the ball, then the whistle comes, B should keep the ball here.

When did A2 catch the ball? I don't get that...

You need to edit the original post as you switched around B2 and Team B with A2 and Team A near the end.

That said, this exact play is an issue of contention amongst referees. When the backcourt rule had three specific exceptions, this scenario would not qualify as one of them. However, since the rewrite of the backcourt rule, there is now a solid case to be made that the words as written in the rules book allow B2's action to be legal, since his team was not in control at the time that he became an airborne player.

BktBallRef and I have had a good discussion of this already on this forum. I'll see if I can find the old thread and post the link. Here it is: http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=29471
The bottom line is that if the official believes this is a violation then Team A gets the ball and there was nothing wrong with the whistle. However, if the official believes that this is a legal play, then Team B had control at the time of the accidental whistle and gets to keep the ball via the POI rule.

So not only do I question the rules knowledge of the officials on this game, but they also failed their course in logic.

Sorry, I don't respond to posts that contain any form of the term "y'all". It's almost like French. :eek:

To determine how to administer the throwin, you need to determine when the ball became dead.
When a violation or foul occurs, the ball is dead at the time of violation or foul (except on a shot, but that doesn't matter here.)
Since there was no violation according to the official, then the ball became dead on the whistle. At the time of the whistle, B1 had the ball, so B1 should get the ball for a throwin. No AP.
The clinician was correct.

Oh, now that's just cold hearted.

sorry about the typo -- correction is fixed.

And to make clear -- ball is simultaneously tapped by A1 and B1 towards division line after the missed FT by A, ball bounces once, then A2 jumps from the backcourt, catches the ball, and lands in the front court as the whistle blows.

If that is the case, then this play is not interesting at all. It is NEVER a violation to jump from the BACKCOURT and land in the FRONTCOURT. It can only be a violation if the player goes the other direction.

The play that is thought-provoking is when A2 goes the other direction. For this case, see my post above.

I agree with the clinician. If A has the ball in hand when the whistle blows give the ball to A. If it is loose when whistle is blown, go to the AP.

That part may well be incorrect. If team control existed before the ball became loose, then there is still team control during the loose ball. Thus going to the AP arrow would be incorrect. POI is still the proper decision.

The clinician was right. A2 established player and team control when he caught the ball, as per NFHS rule 4-12-1&2. A2 had backcourt status when he caught the ball as per NFHS rule 4-35-3. There is no backcourt violation as per NFHS case book play 4.12.2. An inadvertent whistle is now covered under NFHS rule 4-36-1. Team A gets the ball as per NFHS rule 4-36-2(a).

Simple call.

JR, What do you have in the above scenario if A2 jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball while airborne, and then lands in his backcourt?

:eek: We have covered (or tried to cover) this type of play. 9-9-3 described the back court exceptions. Throw-in, Jump ball and DEFENSIVE intercepting ball.
Ball is live. Ball has front court status and team control has not been established. Now, A2 is not a defensive player. Correct? So when A2 jumps from front court secures control of the ball he/she has front court status and has established team control. A2 violates as soon as the 1st foot touches the back court.:D
I thought the rules makers were going to rewrite the rules to make this play and a similar throw-in play a legal play.

I thought that I asked for JR's opinion. ;)

You piss off! :D

Sorry, just bad terminology.

Did you really think that I'd say something different than Zooch?

If you thought that it might irritate me, absolutely! :)

Well, there's that.....:)

That'd be a good idea, why penalize A2 for his hustle?

Coach P,
Hit the link in post #4. :)

I did. It made my head spin.

I got a BC violation BTW.

Ball had FC status
A1 caught the ball (Team control)
A1 therefore was last to touch before ball goes into BC
A1 first to touch after ball goes into BC

Not a throw-in, jump ball, or defensive steal.

Doesn't seem fair to me though, because the same thing is allowed on a throw in. A2 is allowed to land normally.

So, what if A2 was standing OOB, jumped in the air, caught the ball, then landed in bounds?

The question is whether the parenthetical statements are meant to be all inclusive. If they are, then the situation is a BC violation. If they are meant as examples only to show what constitutes "the team not in control," then it's not a BC violation. Personally, I lean towards letting this go.

Are we sure we have the right sport?
 

:p This should be very easy. Replay the down or give the result of the play when the whistle was blown. :D

Peace

Uh, you better think about this one a little more.

For instance, Team A contols the ball in their frontcourt. A2 is holding the ball awaiting A1, who paused coming up court to talk to Coach A. B applies pressure and A2 passes the ball toward A1 in order to avoid the 5 count. A1 jumps the midcourt line and receives the ball in the air, before establishing frontcourt status.

Violation, correct?? Same as if A1 had OOB status.

Yes, but not because the player landed in the frontcourt. The violation is for causing the ball to go into the backcourt, which happened as soon as A1 catches the ball.

Nevadaref's point was that it's never a violation to have the ball in the backcourt and then cause it to go to the frontcourt.

Are you refering to the OP? I don't think the ball had frontcourt status in that situation before A1 caught the ball. There was no team control before he caught it so there couldn't be a frontcourt or back court. Right?

Wait.

If the ball has frontcourt status, last touched by A, and A1 touches it in this situation, you have a backcourt violation the moment A1 touches the ball, as he still has backcourt status until he lands in the frontcourt.

Unless you have a penalty on the play. ;)

Oh, no, sorry, I was reflecting on zoochys post.

But, now that you ask, the OP said the ball hit the floor before A2 caught it. Does that mean the ball has FC status? :confused:

You and Hartsy both took that out of context. It was written for a situation in which there is no team control when the player becomes airborne. I'm only talking about a situation in which a player from a team causes the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt. My sentence specifies that. It does NOT pertain to a situation in which the team causes the ball to go: frontcourt to the backcourt and back to the frontcourt. That is the example which the two of you gave.

Additionally, Scrapper pointed out that in your scenario the violation would occur prior to the player landing, no matter if he lands in the frontcourt or the backcourt.

Yes it does. The ball does have frontcourt status in the play of the OP. Of course, there is no team control at that time so it doesn't matter.

Yabut - you emphasized NEVER. Triply so. Just pointing out the semantics of the words, if you will.

Yup. We all agree on that.

Remember you have to read it in that philosophical, Jesuit way. :)

Now if you want semantics, I could amend it, just for you, to say:
"If the player does not violate immediately upon touching the ball, it is NEVER..."

But it's not really necessary to do so since I didn't say anything about the ball in that post!:D

The clinician is absolutely correct.